/m/history

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Actually, here's a good example of political correctness damaging serious discourse: The Iraq war. No one said that Bush and Cheney were lying through their teeth because that would have been bad form and people in DC just don't do that. But some of that talk could have made a big difference.

Likewise, no one is going to say that Scalia has turned into a crazy old bigot.

But those examples just show that political correctness is not a new phenomenon. Nor is it limited to the left or racial issues. It's just part of our society, and while it's mostly a good thing, it sometimes can be bad.

You're good when it comes for requests, but you haven't caught the knack for reciprocation, have you?

Posts 19, 42, 54, 80, 81. Then come back and read the ones on this page.

#19: I don't care if someone wants to publish a sanitized version of Huckleberry Finn, just so long as they don't try to force it upon school systems. Just as I don't care if someone wants to published an asterisked baseball record book, just so long as it isn't confused with the official records.

#42 is a non-response to another comment

#54 says that PC "doesn't have a place in discourse", but doesn't elaborate on that to say who's objecting to that thought

#80 makes a fairly unobjectionable point about Stephen Pinker, but it's kind of a non sequitur, since in the case of the n-word it's only found objectionable by (nearly) everyone when its use is accompanied by the malignant sentiment. Stripped of that context, the objections to it seem far less widespread.

And I'll just quote #81, since I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. It was directed at robinred, and was nonresponsive to his point.

There are no meritorious differences as to debate and serious discourse--it's not a respectable position to hold in debate. And the reason you pull this out of your, er, sleeve is that you don't want to discuss anything except within your parameters, which is because you have nothing else. Which means you have nothing. #### that.

If you or anyone can translate that into English, please do so, and preferably without 20 page academic footnotes.

136:

How about James Watson?

He's got a right to think and say whatever he pleases. He doesn't have the right to a permanent job, though he has the perfect right to holler "PC" if his rantings cause him to lose it. His ramblings about genetics and public policy are about on the level of Frances Cress Welsing's thoughts on white people's lack of melanin.

So, now: When do you think that the n-word should be used, and when shouldn't it be? Your anti-PC sentiments would be a lot easier to understand if you'd give more specific examples of when and where you would draw the line between "discourse" (which includes works of imagination) and gratuitous insult.

Forget about discourse on some obscure part of the web. People get fired, their words ripped out of context so a whole crowd of people can grin and smile as the guy dangles.

That's the obscenity.

There have sure been plenty of cases where that's been true**, and if Morty would concentrate on those he'd have more of a point to make.

**Such as the case of Shirley Sherrod, where the right wing attack gang twisted her words 180 degrees and whipped up a media frenzy so powerful that her superiors immediately caved and fired her. Of course it was nice to see that God subsequently dealt with Andrew Breitbart in His own inimitable way.

That means, though, you are going to have to be willing to put up with dickheads and people who are wrong--terribly, awfully wrong.

No one is advocating throwing you in jail or taking away your computer. Same with Watson. Same with Summers. I am perfectly willing to put up with all of you. But you have to put up with other people saying that you're wrong or that they don't like what you have to say. I just don't see a cultural crisis.

No one is advocating throwing you in jail or taking away your computer. Same with Watson. Same with Summers. I am perfectly willing to put up with all of you. But you have to put up with other people saying that you're wrong or that they don't like what you have to say. I just don't see a cultural crisis.

The irony is that the person here who's done the most complaining about overly tender sensibilities seems to be the prime example of the problem he's talking about.

Actually, here's a good example of political correctness damaging serious discourse: The Iraq war. No one said that Bush and Cheney were lying through their teeth because that would have been bad form and people in DC just don't do that. But some of that talk could have made a big difference.

I think it's more than that. I think people, many people, wanted to believe what Bushco was pushing. A terrible thing had happened, and many of us felt that in circumstances like that you should get behind the President. Many got the impression that it was a national emergency--many wanted to believe that it was. That's a pretty natural thing to do. And I think the legislative branch, and the media, went along with that. It was understandable. Supposedly, the executive branch was on top of things. They deferred to a leader in what seemed like a dire circs. What is surprising is how long it took for us to come of it. Of course, then many of us simply lateraled into denial. But, then, it shouldn't be surprising. The mentality expresses itself not just in matters of war and international events. It can be as small as--well, the issues we've been discussing for these pass few weeks.

#19: I don't care if someone wants to publish a sanitized version of Huckleberry Finn, just so long as they don't try to force it upon school systems. Just as I don't care if someone wants to published an asterisked baseball record book, just so long as it isn't confused with the official records.

Aw, how sweet. But they will force it upon school systems. That's like saying I think scientific creationism ought to be taught in schools--as long as it isn't confused with science. Um, hmm.

But, again, you refuse to see the issue. It isn’t about publishing such a work, or having it in school. It’s about the nature of the ####### response—the instinctive, non-thinking reaction that wants it not to be heard.

He's got a right to think and say whatever he pleases. He doesn't have the right to a permanent job, though he has the perfect right to holler "PC" if his rantings cause him to lose it. His ramblings about genetics and public policy are about on the level of Frances Cress Welsing's thoughts on white people's lack of melanin.

That, again, misses the point. He didn't have the right to say what he said, was what everyone who jumped on him held. (Does James Watson know something about biology or doesn’t he? Why wouldn’t we be interested in what he has to say about the subject of race and intelligence? Are you interested in hearing anything outside your comfort zone on this--or anything, for that matter?)

Indeed, I've brought this up before, and this is the first time you've expressed any free expression largesse at all. But, again, this isn’t about whether Watson is right or wrong. Or whether he's a dick or dickish. It's about the reflex action of many, including those in our institutions, which reflects on how little people think of rights if it may seem like an attack on a sacred cow. It's easy to be for free expression and for encouraging discourse when nothing be said that offends you. That isn't the test, and you should know that. And this response is a reflex action when it comes to certain issues, many having to do with race or sex. You can't go there. Just like you are appalled anyone might want to go to different place than you in cases of rape. You were disgusted. Where was the largesse then? Besides making the person who reacts this way seem like an unconscionable ass, it is a dagger to the heart of the justice system—and to simple fair play.

That means, though, you are going to have to be willing to put up with dickheads and people who are wrong--terribly, awfully wrong.

No one is advocating throwing you in jail or taking away your computer. Same with Watson. Same with Summers. I am perfectly willing to put up with all of you. But you have to put up with other people saying that you're wrong or that they don't like what you have to say. I just don't see a cultural crisis.

Trying to communicate with some of you is like talking to the wind. That is implicit in your position and the way it is expressed. What's the old gag about the German who didn't object to the herding of the Jews because he wasn't a Jew, etc.?

That is all about some not putting up with expression that is instinctually abhorrent to them—views that frighten you. And browbeating discourse into contouring itself along those lines. How many times how many ways must I say it? It isn’t about you not being able to criticize whomever—it’s about those people who just don’t frigging want it said at all from the very outset. They don't want to have to even engage in Orwellian dictate. We should just know better.

The irony is that the person here who's done the most complaining about overly tender sensibilities seems to be the prime example of the problem he's talking about.

Now, that is dumb, and sure seems dishonest, too.

The irony is you've had to be pulled out of that mindset stuck in the '50s and '60s like a Three Stooges short about pulling teeth. I remember, Jolly Old, when long ago I first mentioned the contradiction of believing in equality and tolerating preferential treatment of favored racial classes. You and Matt #### all over yourselves, and you engage in this same sort of rearguard insult and insinuation, culminating in you and he picking up your football and running off. Like now, you hemorrhaged. You’ve come along way since those days. You've lost your cherry. I know how hard having a mental life stuck in 1965 like a defective needle on an old vinyl record must be, but remember what Earl Weaver said: it’s what you learn after you know it all that counts. People are people, whether they are politically equal in your mind or not, whether they are of the sort you deem deserving, and it is only the institutionalization of our better nature that gives society and us a chance to be better. Remember, too, if all people are equal and the same, they will express the same characteristics in some fashion or other. It's a given.

I've always assumed -- perhaps incorrectly but this isn't a legal verdict -- that that guy was trying to push some buttons.

It is not just some vanishing minority. The mindset just does a lateral to something else. It's not the focus of the mindset that is the problem. It's the mindset. But, this particular focus is all over--here, at Amazon, at those who reacted to the media unseemingly sympathizing with those Steubenville boys. It's not an aberration. It's typical--not overwhelmingly prevalent in expression, but a typical view.

#19: I don't care if someone wants to publish a sanitized version of Huckleberry Finn, just so long as they don't try to force it upon school systems. Just as I don't care if someone wants to published an asterisked baseball record book, just so long as it isn't confused with the official records.

Aw, how sweet. But they will force it upon school systems. That's like saying I think scientific creationism ought to be taught in schools--as long as it isn't confused with science. Um, hmm.

But, again, you refuse to see the issue. It isn’t about publishing such a work, or having it in school. It’s about the nature of the ####### response—the instinctive, non-thinking reaction that wants it not to be heard.

Hmmmm, I'm against the censorship or altering of the novel. I'd resist any attempt to force any altered version into a school system. And I think that if someone wants to publish an altered version and sell it to private groups or individuals, they should be allowed to.

None of that satisfies you, because what? Because I'd refuse to reflexively condemn the motivations of parents who might not want their children exposed to the n-word in class? Sorry, but with those people I'd approach them with reason and persuasion, not condemnation. If that's not good enough to satisfy your own peculiar version of political correctness, there's not much more to say. For someone who trumpets his openmindedness as if it were a stuffed boar's head in his den, you sure have a funny way of demonstrating it.

He's got a right to think and say whatever he pleases. He doesn't have the right to a permanent job, though he has the perfect right to holler "PC" if his rantings cause him to lose it. His ramblings about genetics and public policy are about on the level of Frances Cress Welsing's thoughts on white people's lack of melanin.

That, again, misses the point. He didn't have the right to say what he said, was what everyone who jumped on him held. (Does James Watson know something about biology or doesn’t he? Why wouldn’t we be interested in what he has to say about the subject of race and intelligence? Are you interested in hearing anything outside your comfort zone on this--or anything, for that matter?)

Morty, I've been listening to you for the past several years, and I've got nearly half a floor to ceiling bookcase filled with defenses of racial superiority, dating from the ante-bellum period up through the present and all points in between. I don't need any lectures from you about my willingness to read viewpoints out of my comfort zone, and your condescension on this subject is becoming more than a bit tiresome.

And not being familiar with the details of the Watson case, I'm not even sure how I would react, though the little I've read of his racial views doesn't seem particular original to him. What I said was simply that he doesn't have any right to a permanent job.

Lame and pathetic defensiveness is worthy of the meanest condescension, and not much more. A mind like yours could say the same about you wrt to racism. You can't help but engage in racism, for, I guess, you know, Aristotle, it's all subjective.

The irony is that the person here who's done the most complaining about overly tender sensibilities seems to be the prime example of the problem he's talking about.

Now, that is dumb, and sure seems dishonest, too.

Gee, should I now pull a Morty and act as if I've been shot?

The irony is you've had to be pulled out of that mindset stuck in the '50s and '60s like a Three Stooges short about pulling teeth. I remember, Jolly Old, when long ago I first mentioned the contradiction of believing in equality and tolerating preferential treatment of favored racial classes. You and Matt #### all over yourselves, and you engage in this same sort of rearguard insult and insinuation, culminating in you and he picking up your football and running off. Like now, you hemorrhaged. You’ve come along way since those days. You've lost your cherry. I know how hard having a mental life stuck in 1965 like a defective needle on an old vinyl record must be, but remember what Earl Weaver said: it’s what you learn after you know it all that counts. People are people, whether they are politically equal in your mind or not, whether they are of the sort you deem deserving, and it is only the institutionalization of our better nature that gives society and us a chance to be better. Remember, too, if all people are equal and the same, they will express the same characteristics in some fashion or other. It's a given.

That's a masterly combination of undefined terms, selective misrepresentation of my point of view (I'll let Matt speak for himself), antiquated insults, and a stream of meaningless homilies that could have come straight out of a bad Frank Capra movie. I take it this is one of those moments where you're just itching to equate all firms of affirmative action with some sort of 1984 worldview, and denounce anyone who even peeps a peep of dissent to your simplistic equation.

Of course if you were half as "openminded" as you claim to be, you might want to de-hemorrhage yourself and listen to the reasons that lie behind affirmative action's advocacy, not to mention the differences among the many forms that it's taken over the years. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for anything other than a simplistic equation of my actual views with that of a racist.

Lame and pathetic defensiveness is worthy of the meanest condescension, and not much more. A mind like yours could say the same about you wrt to racism. You can't help but engage in racism, for, I guess, you know, Aristotle, it's all subjective.

Morty, here's a simple test to see how truly openminded you really are. You may pass it and you may not, but here it is:

In any number of words you want to use, make as good a case as you can for affirmative action. Pretend you're trying to convince some wavering moderate whose vote will tip the scales, and give it your best shot. A truly openminded opponent of affirmative action could do this in a New York minute. OTOH someone who just likes to parrot anti-affirmative action cliches might find himself grasping for words. Feel free to throw in as many Jimmy Stewart or Three Stooges references as you wish, if you think that will help convince the waverer.

Oh, and if you can ever condescend to engage in this little exercise, I'll be more than happy to reciprocate by taking the other side. Any skilled wordsmith such as yourself should be glad to take up such an easy challenge against someone as incoherent as you think I am.

Again, there are certainly examples of people pushing PC too far (e.g., that guy who was fired for saying "niggardly"), but I don't think there's anything wrong with the concept. As I said earlier, it's mostly a function of having respect and empathy for other peoples' points of view.

I've always assumed -- perhaps incorrectly but this isn't a legal verdict -- that that guy was trying to push some buttons.

Almost certainly incorrect. If this is one of the examples people are going to use then it's worth getting the facts right. I'm taking this from Wikipedia, but it basically jibes with my memory of the story:

On January 15, 1999, David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., used "niggardly" in reference to a budget. This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (identified by Howard as Marshall Brown), who interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25 Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it. However, after pressure from the gay community (of which Howard was a member) an internal review into the matter was brought about, and the mayor offered Howard the chance to return to his position as Office of the Public Advocate on February 4. Howard refused but accepted another position with the mayor instead, insisting that he did not feel victimized by the incident. On the contrary, Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. "I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind. That's naïve, especially for a white person, because a white person can afford to be colorblind. They don't have to think about race every day. An African American does."

The excerpt doesn't tell me much, except that the guy realized he said something he shouldn't have. That guy's response makes it pretty clear that his case isn't fodder for another Morty Causa-style crusade. Maybe I should clarify that I'm not putting that guy in the same class as the recent clown who defended slavery at CPAC, but I might put him in a group with Doug Gottlieb.

Doesn't boring the $hit out of everyone on the site get, well, boring after a while? There's nothing to see here-- no one has argued that the term shouldn't be used in the film, and still, here you are, picking a fight with no one, just so you have an excuse to ramble on incomprehensibly.

I'll go with, it's ten minutes extremely well spent, but the best ten would go towards reading Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language".

------

I don't agree with a lot of what Morty writes, but the idea that he isn't more than clear enough to be engaged with is ridiculous. A few of you remind me of 12 year olds trying to win an argument by prattling, "What? I can't hear you? Did someone say something? Is he speaking English??" Grow up.

------

Speaking of disagreeing, re Morty's post 158:

Actually, here's a good example of political correctness damaging serious discourse: The Iraq war. No one said that Bush and Cheney were lying through their teeth because that would have been bad form and people in DC just don't do that. But some of that talk could have made a big difference.

I think it's more than that. I think people, many people, wanted to believe what Bushco was pushing. A terrible thing had happened, and many of us felt that in circumstances like that you should get behind the President. Many got the impression that it was a national emergency--many wanted to believe that it was. That's a pretty natural thing to do. And I think the legislative branch, and the media, went along with that. It was understandable. Supposedly, the executive branch was on top of things. They deferred to a leader in what seemed like a dire circs. What is surprising is how long it took for us to come of it. Of course, then many of us simply lateraled into denial. But, then, it shouldn't be surprising. The mentality expresses itself not just in matters of war and international events. It can be as small as--well, the issues we've been discussing for these pass few weeks.

This is entirely too benign a reading of national ignorance, rage, and cowardice that led to the murder of a hundred thousand people. It was abundantly clear to literally hundreds of millions of us around the world that the Bush administration was forging evidence, lying, and intending to profit from a war of choice. No one who had watched Bush in the months leading up to 9/11 and then to the initial bombing of Baghdad could have any illusions about his competence or intentions.

Returning to Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" thoroughly anticipates how language was used by the Bush administration and its apologists and abettors (which included the public) to make mass murder palatable. I'd suggest to anyone interested that the video linked to in 104 is terrifically on target wrt smaller social settings, while Orwell is particularly good at addressing the broad range of national political discourse.

...get[ting] behind the President

is precisely the kind of language used to sell the invasion, and it's exactly the kind of language we should avoid in aiming to understand the national rampage the United States went on.

Morty, here's a simple test to see how truly openminded you really are. You may pass it and you may not, but here it is:

In any number of words you want to use, make as good a case as you can for affirmative action. Pretend you're trying to convince some wavering moderate whose vote will tip the scales, and give it your best shot. A truly openminded opponent of affirmative action could do this in a New York minute. OTOH someone who just likes to parrot anti-affirmative action cliches might find himself grasping for words.

This is truly incredible. You always want the merits to resolve the issue of rights. It’s worse than Alice in the Wonderful: first come to a decision, then we decide who can argue and what can be argued. Is that it? You keep referring to the merits and never want to address the issue as posed to you—does someone have the right to make his case, an unpopular one, or is it okay to simply shout him down? You evade this because in your heart of hearts you don’t want to hear what someone has to say if you will take it as an attack on your core beliefs. That can’t be how it’s done. That’s a non-starter. If it is, then it’s all still a free-for-all and your favored group goes back to having to fight for its freedom.

The question you are too chicken #### to ever answer about Affirmative Action is whether it is racism. And you keep changing the subject, just as you do about the issue of reflexively shouting down dissent. You have this idea, like many, that if racism is good (for you and yours), then somehow, magically, it’s transformed into non-racism. Whether something is good or needed is separate from what it is.

Now, having said that, I could make a case for Affirmative Action. In fact, I have many times. It would be the same case made all the time by divers and sundry. And there’s a lot to be said for it. However, it is still law that is fundamentally discriminatory. That was my point then, and it is the point I would make against it now. Back then, you didn’t want hear it; now you still don’t. You, in fact, want me to make your case.

Well, have you showed your understanding of the opposition by making the case against AA? I’m inclined to say I’ll argue for AA preferences and discriminatory policies if you first argue against them extensively. But the whole thing is silly. You can’t get out of the hog wallow of your ad hominem. You're incapable of empathy with the old racists--you're a new racist.

Finally, though, it doesn’t matter if I’m a racist, just as I bet it doesn't matter if your side acts racist. The arguments for each exist. Deal with it—or be counted as no better than those southern racist you had such fun feeling superior to.

This is entirely too benign a reading of national ignorance, rage, and cowardice that led to the murder of a hundred thousand people. It was abundantly clear to literally hundreds of millions of us around the world that the Bush administration was forging evidence, lying, and intending to profit from a war of choice. No one who had watched Bush in the months leading up to 9/11 and then to the initial bombing of Baghdad could have any illusions about his competence or intentions.

Wow, overbid of the year.

Yes, Bush launched a foolish war with no plan how to win it, and used false pretense to justify it. And then, they botched the execution very badly.

However, the U.S. as a sovereign nation had sufficient grounds to declare war on Iraq (or get the Congressional resolutions that pass for DoWs these days). You may not like it, but under international law we can declare was on countries that behave as Sadaam Hussein's Iraq did.

Even if one was to apportion blame the deaths, why don't the insurgents bear responsibility for the vast majority of deaths that happened after the invasion succeeded? When your country loses a war, you're supposed to surrender, and reconstitute a gov't that is acceptable to the victor.

This is entirely too benign a reading of national ignorance, rage, and cowardice that led to the murder of a hundred thousand people. It was abundantly clear to literally hundreds of millions of us around the world that the Bush administration was forging evidence, lying, and intending to profit from a war of choice. No one who had watched Bush in the months leading up to 9/11 and then to the initial bombing of Baghdad could have any illusions about his competence or intentions.

I probably am being too light on him. I loathed him, would not have voted for him in thousand years, and was infuriated by Florida and the Supreme Court debacle. Perhaps I overcompensated for my instinctive revulsion by giving him too much the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't alone. Patriotic fervor, fear of not being seen as patriotic, plus a genuine confusion can lead to unhappy circumstances. Not to excuse myself, but happens often--usually in emotionally charged situations that lead to poorly thought reactions. Brazenness can be very effective. And it takes a while to wake up. Although I never supported Bushco, I have to admit being tacitly submissive. And like some we know who wake up the next morning full of regret, even shame. I feel violated.

Now, having said that, I could make a case for Affirmative Action. In fact, I have many times. It would be the same case made all the time by divers and sundry. And there’s a lot to be said for it.

Then just do it. You may be capable of such an intellectual exercise, but it remains to be demonstrated. And don't worry, if and when you do it, I won't back down on my promise of reciprocity.

But go ahead and surprise me. Show us that your understanding encompasses both sides of the affirmative action issue instead of settling for simplistic notions of "racism" as a one-size-fits-all description of it.

Well, have you showed your understanding of the opposition by making the case against AA? I’m inclined to say I’ll argue for AA preferences and discriminatory policies if you first argue against them extensively. But the whole thing is silly. You can’t get out of the hog wallow of your ad hominem. You're incapable of empathy with the old racists--you're a new racist.

That's about on the level of everything else you've said in this thread, and it's not worth responding to.

Finally, though it doesn’t matter if I’m a racist, just as I bet it doesn't matter if your side acts racist. The arguments for each exist. Deal with it—or be counted as no better than those southern racist you had such fun feeling superior to.

I don't think for a second that you're a racist, and I've never made such a stupid accusation, but I do think that your understanding of the role that race has played (and continues to play) in our country's history barely exceeds that of Ray.

What I find so horrifying (no exaggeration) about the best of Tom is how close he gets to what really gets said, while somehow staying just on that side of the line that manages to remind us exactly how insane things are. How deranged is it that three-quarters of Romney's foreign policy gang during the campaign were Bush/Iraq retreads? How extraordinary is it that if a newspaper ran Bush's latest self-portrait of himself in the shower adjacent a photograph of a seven year old child blown to bloody bits in the first bombing of Baghdad in 2003, the outcry would run 50 to 1 towards what poor taste the newspaper was demonstrating by showing a murdered child, rather than the poor taste of the murder itself?

Speaking of language, there just happens to be a film playing on the sundance channel***, where a black man has to push and persuade his white female lover to say, over and over, "nigger, fuck me hard". Interesting to me, the channel places an enormous, bright red rectangle over the sex act, which isn't any more revealing than the nudity just prior to it, but the channel nonetheless decides to allow us to hear "nigger" over and over and over. The logic isn't clear.

The woman then writes about the episode and reads it in front of her creative writing class, mostly white students led by a black professor. She describes to the class the "actual" episode, then gets marvelously pc responses from the white students. Oh, and sitting next to her in class is her boyfriend, a disabled white guy. The movie is called Storytelling. It's engaging, listening to these kids talking about a factual epsiode as though it was fiction. Hard to say what worth the movie has, but it's interesting in light of this thread.

***Why the hell would a channel that promotes film so routinely flog ads on the screen while films are playing? It's a despicable practice.

Then just do it. You may be capable of such an intellectual exercise, but it remains to be demonstrated. And don't worry, if and when you do it, I won't back down on my promise of reciprocity.

But go ahead and surprise me. Show us that your understanding encompasses both sides of the affirmative action issue instead of settling for simplistic notions of "racism" as a one-size-fits-all description of it.

Yeah, because if there's one triumphant and inescapable characteristic demonstrated by the identity liberals, it's a deep understanding and appreciation of the arguments and perspectives of the classical liberals.

I don't get the Sundance channel, Jack, but that sounds like quite a movie, or at least the scenes you describe. It sounds like a very good depiction of how the real world of today often comes into conflict with an idealized vision of the world of tomorrow, reinforced by Sundance's censorship in a particularly sublime way.

While it's got little in common with Storytelling, another movie that's got a slant on race that's been too hot for television is Samuel Fuller's White Dog. Combining those two films in back-to-back classes with a teacher who's committed to open engagement might make for a hell of a classroom discussion.

***Why the hell would a channel that promotes film so routinely flog ads on the screen while films are playing? It's a despicable practice.

Hey, why do you think some of us swear by TCM? Not a commercial in a carload from the opening credits to "The End">

Then just do it. You may be capable of such an intellectual exercise, but it remains to be demonstrated. And don't worry, if and when you do it, I won't back down on my promise of reciprocity.

But go ahead and surprise me. Show us that your understanding encompasses both sides of the affirmative action issue instead of settling for simplistic notions of "racism" as a one-size-fits-all description of it.

Yeah, because if there's one triumphant and inescapable characteristic demonstrated by the identity liberals, it's a deep understanding and appreciation of the arguments and perspectives of the classical liberals.**

Sure thing, Andy.

Well, I've issued a challenge along with a promise to reciprocate. I would think that you or Morty might jump at the chance to make me show just how incapable I am of expressing your side of of one of your pet issues. But it looks like both of you are content to be stuck in your own little comfort zones.

**Of course another interesting debate would feature the real Adam Smith vs. today's "free market" gurus. Maybe we could get the Fox News Channel to stage that one.

Brief, sort of baseball interlude: soundtrack for Storytelling is by Belle and Sebastian, a Scottish band whose follow-up was an album containing the song 'Piazza, New York Catcher' (itself the subject of a thread and many references on this site)
There's a story behind that red box as well, fussing between the director and mpaa about the nature of censorship (scene sans box would've pushed the film to nc-17) - the assoc. nixed the word 'censored' from appearing in the box as they don't consider themselves censors.

So, it’s all about a sensitivity rehab? Don’t you ever even attempt to get out of your box? Aren't you tired of being a cliche? Do you think anyone here would have his/her eyes opened?

But, nope. You first. I’ve been down this road before. It’s your baby.

You distort comments on issues presented, engage in insult and diatribe, and desperately insist on changing the subject. You still have not shown that you understand the point being made about allowing views that are considered anathema to the PC zeitgeist to be expressed. Do you get that? Do you understand why maybe the first response shouldn’t be to squelch an opinion or view?

As to your silly challenge. It’s dumb and would be just a colossal waste of time. I have nothing to prove to you, and nothing you would accept as proof. Whatever I would say you’d find woefully insufficient—I mean, that’s a given. What’s the point? And you have never shown that you are capable of being sensitive to views counter to yours. As here, you misrepresent them, distort them, and then desperately engaged in ham-handed attempts at changing the subject. Anything to not think about the uncomfortably irreconcilable. It’s both insulting and clumsy argument.

However, you made a proposal, and I made a counterproposal. If you really think a lawyer (or anyone mildly informed) can’t manufacture a case for AA (just go to the ACLU site), then, first, I want to you to put up an argument against it. My response will be along the lines of yours. I’m not doing any more work on this than you do. And I simply don’t trust you. I’m truly sorry our relations here have deteriorated to the extent they have, but there you have it. Take it or leave it. That’s non-negotiable.

And a happy Resurrection to you. (smile) I'll let others make up their own minds about who's been playing the artful dodger on this thread, and leave you to wallow in your peculiar form of victimization.

I don't think for a second that you're a racist, and I've never made such a stupid accusation, but I do think that your understanding of the role that race has played (and continues to play) in our country's history barely exceeds that of Ray.

That kind of weaseling has to be admired both for its transparent insincerity and its smart about-face.

I don't think for a second that you're a racist, and I've never made such a stupid accusation, but I do think that your understanding of the role that race has played (and continues to play) in our country's history barely exceeds that of Ray.

That kind of weaseling has to be admired both for its transparent insincerity

I'm sorry if you're disappointed that I think of you as more dogmatic and ahistorical than anything like a racist, but I've never seen any evidence of any racial hostility on your part.

and its smart about-face.

On what? When have I ever stated or implied that your views stemmed from racism, rather than from other factors?

To accomplish your heart's desire, it would have been a whole lot better if you and the others had simply conceded the narrow, irrefutable point we were making, rather than desperately attempting to obfuscate it turning the discussion into a County Fair replete with two-headed calf and bearded lady.

To accomplish your heart's desire, it would have been a whole lot better if you and the others had simply conceded the narrow, irrefutable point we were making, rather than desperately attempting to obfuscate it turning the discussion into a County Fair replete with two-headed calf and bearded lady.

Huh? I haven't engaged with you at all on this issue, other than to point out that you're doing the same boring-ass thing you do in every thread-- stake a position, and then cry "help, help I'm being oppressed!" when the people who express a contrary opinion and don't want to spend 500 posts listening to you melodramatically restate your initial premise over and over again.

Morty, I'll certainly concede the narrow, irrefutable point that you've played just about every role in this thread, up to and including that of a two-headed calf and a bearded lady. Forgive me for thinking you might actually be capable of going beyond that if you chose to put your mind to it, but maybe after the Resurrection.

You wouldn't have the problem if you restricted yourself to argument and not in the mystique of the arguer. And if like formerly dp, you find what's mooted inconsequential, ignore it and move on. Who knows, maybe then matters could progress to greater things. There's room and opportunity to give both their due.

@191: how on earth did I miss White Dog? Fuller's terrific. Thanks for the reference. My evening is falling into place! Btw, there was a film on race from the early 60s including no less an actor than William Shatner. I'll imbd it in a minute.

@193: good story, DK. "Yeah, we're not censors, but if you don't pull that scene all of four people will see your film. But we're not censors".

In case this thread isn't inflamed enough we should consider getting into a discussion of Do the Right Thing. I was surprised and impressed by how willing Lee was to portray blacks in some pretty unpleasant lights. It was on last night and I had forgotten that in the penultimate scene Radio Raheem is well on his way to murdering Sal for busting up his radio and calling him a "nigger." Also, it was entirely possible the crowd would have drifted away peaceably enough if not for Mookie setting off the riot.

Anyone interested should google Tom the Dancing Bug on Scalia and the Voting Rights Act. I can't get the link to work.

edit: "Again, you want to close down the conversation. Don't you ever even try to go against your repressive grain?

I'm not closing it down, Morty. I'm pointing out the naked fact that your constant claims of victimization and repression bore the $hit out of everyone on the site."

Having been drafted by that use of "everyone" I'm compelled to disagree. Morty's references to some of the implicit censoring on this site are only a small part of his interesting arsenal, and it's a topic worth going into. I don't know that he gets much meat by way of reply, so I'm not surprised the issue resurfaces for him more than you think is optimal.

Btw, there was a film on race from the early 60s including no less an actor than William Shatner. I'll imbd it in a minute.

It had a couple of titles, but the one that comes to mind for me without checking is I Hate Your Guts. Supposedly, I think, the only film Roger Corman ever lost money on. Based on The Intruder, a novel by Charles Beaumont (who probably scripted), far better known as an excellent horror writer.

Wow--given that imdb lists the budget for I Hate Your Guts/The Intruder as $90,000, that's tough to lose money on. It even gets an impressive 7.8 rating. I'll have to take a look. Btw, speaking of Shatner, the movie's star, I was feeling nostalgic and for the first time in 20 years watched a half dozen Star Trek episodes. Granted I was cherry picking the ones I remembered fondly, but Shatner was nowhere near the ham he's so often portrayed as. In fact, he often nicely underplays his scenes. He was a terrific choice for the role of Kirk.

Roddenberry was also wicked smart to base the series on the relationships between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Making most of the main characters a different ethnicity was also brilliant tv, and not just because it was incredibly progressive. It helps distinguish between a fairly large cast. A decade ago I was laid up and tried to get into Star Trek: Enterprise. After a dozen episodes I couldn't really tell you about any difference between the officers on the bridge or their distinguishing characteristics, if any, except the obvious... gifts Jolene Blalock brought to her role of Vulcan Sub-Commander

At some point I need to sit down & watch a '66 film starring Shatner called Incubus, known mostly for dialogue in Esperanto. It's supposed to be pretty decent. I've got it on VHS, but I've gotten really lazy about watching those, especially since the thrift-store VCR I bought a couple of years ago after my last one's demise came without a remote, & the cheapie universal I bought awhile back decided to stop working.

@207: I've got a similar deal going with Killer of Sheep. If only I could get up off this incredibly comfortable couch...

With a title like Incubus, I just had to look. Imdb sez:

Kia is a succubus, luring to their final perdition men who already have sinful habits and libertine inclinations. She tires of this, it's too easy, and these souls are going to Hell anyway. She wants to match wits and charm with someone who is good. So, against the advice of her sister Amael, Kia seeks out Marc, a man who has already faced death with courage. After a night together, Kia finds that not only is Marc's goodness still intact, but she has been ravaged by love. In anger, she and Amael conjure an incubus to deal with Marc. The incubus starts with Marc's sister, Arndis. Who will win the struggle for souls?

In case this thread isn't inflamed enough we should consider getting into a discussion of Do the Right Thing. I was surprised and impressed by how willing Lee was to portray blacks in some pretty unpleasant lights. It was on last night and I had forgotten that in the penultimate scene Radio Raheem is well on his way to murdering Sal for busting up his radio and calling him a \"######." Also, it was entirely possible the crowd would have drifted away peaceably enough if not for Mookie setting off the riot.

I liked DTRT much better the second time around, but I liked Jungle Fever even more. Both are definitely worth seeing more than once.

@207: I've got a similar deal going with Killer of Sheep. If only I could get up off this incredibly comfortable couch...

Dammit, I've recorded that movie and haven't gotten around yet to watching it. It's definitely on my list.

Jack, since you were asking about under-the-radar indie zombie flicks a couple of weeks ago, have you seen this list of under-the-radar flicks (no zombies included, though) from Entertainment Weekly, headlined "The 50 Best Movies You've Never Seen"? It popped up this afternoon in a Facebook friend's post.

I've seen only 10, though that's really not at all surprising, given the fact that well over 90 percent of what I've watched over the last decade or so has been horror or sf.

(Among obscure non-zombie hroror gems of the last decade or so, movies that stick out for me are Parasomnia, Shallow Ground, Lake Mungo, Dead Birds & All My Friends are Funeral Singers, just for starters.

@211: thanks, gef. That's a great list, based on the 3 or so of the first 15 I've actually seen. Saw Fish Tank last week and it's remarkably good, if occasionally obvious (though the 1.35 : 1 ratio really works towards getting the claustrophobia the director wanted. I can't remember the last time I saw a theatrical release that used the tv ratio) and I remember years ago enjoying the smarts and location shooting of Eve's Bayou.

I'll put the five you mentioned on my list. Great sounding titles.

edit: flipping through I see they have the splendid Layer Cake on the list. Anyone looking for a smart Brit thriller with the role that got Daniel Crane Bond should check it out.

I probably am being too light on him. I loathed him, would not have voted for him in thousand years, and was infuriated by Florida and the Supreme Court debacle. Perhaps I overcompensated for my instinctive revulsion by giving him too much the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't alone. Patriotic fervor, fear of not being seen as patriotic, plus a genuine confusion can lead to unhappy circumstances. Not to excuse myself, but happens often--usually in emotionally charged situations that lead to poorly thought reactions. Brazenness can be very effective. And it takes a while to wake up. Although I never supported Bushco, I have to admit being tacitly submissive. And like some we know who wake up the next morning full of regret, even shame. I feel violated.

There was a Rutgers study from 2003 where the control group was asked a series of mundane questions and the 'experimental' group was asked two additional questions: "Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you" and "jot down, as specifically as possible, what you think will happen to you as you physically die, and once you are physically dead."

The latter group was more likely in a second exercise to support Bush foreign policy. Fear is a primary motivator in life, but it wouldn't be so bad if we didn't try to deny its influence, especially in the denial of death. It's also why we can't honestly admit in policy discussions that we now employ torture and assassination as mainstream tools of foreign policy. A lot of people willing to call Bush by his rightful name are quite willing to give Obama a pass. We all prefer a kinder, gentler machine gun hand.

@214: Which Three Women? I haven't seen any of them and I'm trying to get to more films. I'd also completely forgotten about Robert Altman, who has a Three Women to his credit.

"Film professor" has to be one of the better jobs out there. "Director", too. From time to time I jot down random notes on scenes and dialogue I'd like to turn into a film. It's encouraging that when I get around to it a respectable camera and editing software can be had for under a grand. Before digital it must have been just brutal to shoot and edit on a shoestring.

@209: what didn't you like [about Do The Right Thing] on first viewing?

At this point I can't even remember, since I first saw it when it came out in 1989, but there are more than a few movies I don't really appreciate until a second viewing. This is especially true of a film as emotionally raw as that one, and Lee doesn't pull too many punches.

@214: Which Three Women? I haven't seen any of them and I'm trying to get to more films. I'd also completely forgotten about Robert Altman, who has a Three Women to his credit.

That's another one (the Altman one) I saw half a lifetime ago, and about the only thing I can remember vividly is poor Shelley Duvall trying to ingratiate herself with the line "I'm famous for my tuna melt". I've seen so damn many movies (mostly older ones) in the past 3 1/2 years that they've almost completely blocked out all but the best ones I watched before that. I think it's simply a case of information overload.

White Dog is impressive. Interesting and forceful. I'm glad I told Jolly Old a couple of years ago he'd like it and needed to see it.

My favorite movie on race was Drum. It wrote the book on exploitation films.

The best movies on race are the westerns of the late '40s and '50s--movies like Stars in My Crown, Broken Arrow (a veritable poem of reconciliation), The Searchers, Fort Massacre (a forgotten film with Joel McCrea in some atypical casting), The Scalphunters, to name a few off the top of my head. The Scalphunters has one of the best mixed race buddy relationship in movies. Lancaster and Davis play off each other beautifully. Most westerns that deal with Indians are either explicitly or implicitly about the conundrum of race relations.

@218: Morty, can you give me a line on the western revival in the 60s and 70s, and what's particularly worth watching? I'm due to see Little Big Man again (barely remember it), but I wasn't all that impressed with Tell Them Willie Boy is Here, and McCabe and Mrs. Miller left me cold.

@217: do you ever do informal reviews? I've gotten in the habit of typing while I watch something interesting, or want to focus on, say, the camerawork in Boogie Nights. It's the only way I can keep track given all the time I work at home now and all the movies that keep me company, often in the background.

Vent: it's too bad there are so few Mets fans on BTF who have any kind of detailed knowledge of the team or who can deal with the fact that the team is pretty much cooked for a variety of reasons for the next three years without whining or assaulting the messenger. No wonder the Mets version of Sox Therapy died out. End vent.

@217: do you ever do informal reviews? I've gotten in the habit of typing while I watch something interesting, or want to focus on, say, the camerawork in Boogie Nights. It's the only way I can keep track given all the time I work at home now and all the movies that keep me company, often in the background.

My problem is that I've been watching so damn many movies that I can barely keep track of them. I've got an Excel spreadsheet where I enter the basic info for each one I record, sometimes with a quick rating on a 1-10** scale and a few words of commentary to remind myself what it was about. Needless to say, with well over 2000 feature titles in about 42 months, if I didn't do something like for many of these films, they'd be much more likely to slip down the memory hole. My extended reviews mostly come in the form of conversations with fellow classic movie fanatics, either on the phone or on the TCM forums.

**I can tell I'd be a terrible critic, since of the 1200 or so I've watched and bothered to rate, nearly 400 of them are either 9's, 9.5's or 10's. I'm probably way too forgiving for my pet genres and way too tough on the ones I don't like. (The 7 Glenda Farrell Torchy Blanes and the Richard Dix Whisperer series mostly got 9's or 10's, and Citizen Kane an 8. I would not be inclined to defend those ratings before a panel of New York critics.)

I, too, love The Ten Commandments. The Hollywood historical/biblical spectacular looked like it was going to go on forever, and then abruptly ended almost like it suddenly erupted. Heston was just made for those movies. El Cid, directed by Anthony Mann, may be the ultimate spectacular, its apogee, and it combines a very human story with magnificent imagery and large-scale action. Heston never looked more chiseled in granite gorgeous, and his competition and complement in beauty was none other than Sophia Loren.

Wow--given that imdb lists the budget for I Hate Your Guts/The Intruder as $90,000, that's tough to lose money on. It even gets an impressive 7.8 rating. I'll have to take a look. Btw, speaking of Shatner, the movie's star, I was feeling nostalgic and for the first time in 20 years watched a half dozen Star Trek episodes. Granted I was cherry picking the ones I remembered fondly, but Shatner was nowhere near the ham he's so often portrayed as. In fact, he often nicely underplays his scenes. He was a terrific choice for the role of Kirk.

Shatner was vital to the success of that show. Compare the show to say, Wild Wild West, which was not a bad show. But there Robert Conrad was playing a fairly conventional leading man, the second banana is more colorful, and the best of the villains were farther out still. That is a fairly standard setup. If Kirk is more conventional, Spock would have been forced into more of a conventional exotic alien role. With Kirk taking on more of the outrageous swashbuckling than a leading man normally takes, Spock could be developed more three dimensionally. I can't think of another actor that could have done what Shatner did with the role, even with the occasional over the top moments.

Gary Cooper ended his career, more or less, with two very fine swan songs: The Hanging Tree and Man of the West. You can easily picture James Stewart in these two movies, but Stewart would have probably made his character more angry and bitter. Cooper brings an elegiac quality, a sad, mournful regret to the roles.

(Oh, and John Huston made an interesting western in the early '60s on race with Burt Lancaster and Audrey Hepburn: The Unforgiven. I guess it could be classified as offbeat, except it isn't a little movie.)

The Gregory Peck/Robert Mulligan movie The Stalking Moon is a reversion to the Indian as savage demon. Kind of surprising considering who's involved in the project. It was tense and suspenseful, I remember.

Peckinpah's opus The Wild Bunch is great, I guess. I prefer Ride the High Country and the first three-fourths of Major Dundee. (Heston is magnificent as Dundee, Richard Harris is his usual flamboyant awfulness, but effective anyway.) For all the kneejerk putdown Heston gets sometimes, he was quite generous with Peckinpah and Welles, although he did say Peckinpah was the only man he ever threatened to throttle. Probably would have done Sam good.) The Ballad of Cable Hogue is where Peckinpah shows his soft side a little. A fine thoughtful film about vengeance and forgiveness. Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is memorable, but a little too self-conscious about wanting to be a legendary movie by a legendary director about legendary figures.

Ford's western swan song masterpiece, Liberty Valence, has grown on me. I always thought it was good, but I've become convinced by its many fans that it is a bonafide great movie. The prior Ford/Stewart collaboration Two Rode Together is a lot better than its reputation, especially in terms of Stewart's performance. It, too, deals with race.

Little Big Man is fun--not a bad adaptation of a great novel, but it distorts the point of the novel, trivializes its tragic tones. Hoffman gives a super performance. Arthur Penn's other two westerns The Left-Handed Gun with a very young Paul Newman and The Missouri Breaks with a very weird Marlon Brando and a rather devil-may-care Jack Nicholson are interesting, but should be better.

I think the Leone/Eastwood trilogy still holds up, as does Once Upon A Time in the West, thanks to the story and Fonda and Robards.

One of the best Randolph Scott westerns (no star ever concluded his career as Scott did with a string of his best movies) is Comanche Station--a gem that is framed as a quest but is ultimately about respect between a man and a woman. There aren't many movies like that. Scott's way of handling his dialogue is the very definition of terse. It snaps with intelligence and integrity.

Brando's foray into direction, One-Eyed Jacks, is an interesting take on the vengeance western not as good as the Mann/Stewart ones, but kind of unusual. Brando maybe should have stuck to directing at that point.

John Sturges made some good westerns in the '50s and '60s. He never was a truly great director--more along the lines of Don Siegel. The Hallelujah Trail is The Mad Mad Mad Mad World of westerns, kind of, and I love it. Lancaster is in his brusque no-nonsense masculine comic mode. He's the equivalent of the goosed spinster.

I’ve become weary of Robert Altman's pretensions, and that applies to McCabe. I never did like Willie Boy—but them I like my parables and allegories with more subtlety and grace and less shrill schematic dogmatism. Polonsky can be forceful, but he has the sensibilities of a half-wit sophomore political science major.

The James Garner comedy westerns should be remembered, especially Skin Game, which also deals explicitly with race.

Will Penny attempts to make a tragedy out of the aging cowboy, then turns into a conventional shoot ‘em up. Heston gives a rather touching tender performance.

The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid got very good reviews back then and was highly regarded. I liked it, but should have liked it more, I felt.

@226: Fabulous. I have a guide now. Many thanks. That post would make a great article.

Needless to say, with well over 2000 feature titles in about 42 months,...

You realize that's a double feature every day, right? Madness! I was interested to see your "8" for Kane. I'm due for another viewing (its been twenty years). Wonder what I'll make of it.

I enjoy reviewing my thoughts on film once in a blue moon, and hope that my appreciation and awareness is growing, something I can tell better when I look at my notes. All of which is to say I just picked up v11.5 of Dragon Naturally Speaking, and I'll be interested to see if it can handle my commentary with the film playing in the background without mixing up the two. Given how close I think we are to The Singularity, it's dismaying as hell that we still don't have voice recognition software that can transcribe two voices in conversation.

@225: Couldn't agree more. I don't think I appreciated Shatner at the time, but his work on ST TOS really holds up, as does Nimoy's. Nimoy's role could have been a disaster.*** It's also extraordinary they made as many fine episodes as they did, given they were cranking out almost 30 a year. Granted, there are some turkeys--some of the scripts feel brutally rushed, barely rough drafts, and The Galileo Seven is almost done in by its foam spears and hairy giant aliens so quickly assembled that they had to be shot from fifty feet away, and only from behind, iirc.

***I'm not thrilled by the reboot, but Zachary Quinto is a very able Spock. I object to Pine, and to giving Spock a smoochy love interest, but if the success of the movies generates a new series (and why wouldn't it?), it's worth it.

"Film professor" has to be one of the better jobs out there. "Director", too. From time to time I jot down random notes on scenes and dialogue I'd like to turn into a film. It's encouraging that when I get around to it a respectable camera and editing software can be had for under a grand. Before digital it must have been just brutal to shoot and edit on a shoestring.

Fassbinder did it, supposedly getting paid in cash to feed his cocaine habit. If making movies or writing book or whatever is important to you, do it and don't worry too much about how.

Altman. Three Women an intriguing movie. I'm not sure if David Lynch owes a debt to Altman, or if both merely work the same side of Sunset Blvd.

I'm currently reading Geoff Dyer's Zona: A Book about a Film about a Journey to a Room. Recommended.

Needless to say, with well over 2000 feature titles in about 42 months,...

You realize that's a double feature every day, right? Madness!

Tell me about it, although it's probably more like about 10 or 12 a week, and some of them like Nightmare Alley (which was on FCM this morning) I'll watch multiple times.

I was interested to see your "8" for Kane. I'm due for another viewing (its been twenty years). Wonder what I'll make of it.

That's one of those movies I know is good, and I can tell you why it's supposed to be great, but for whatever reason I can't get over the thought that I wish it'd gotten so close to the real William Randolph Hearst that he would've reacted by not just keeping ads for the movie out of his newspapers, but would have challenged Orson Welles to a duel. But in baseball terms, for me it just lacks the intangibles.

Here's a movie with a strong racial theme that I just finished watching on YouTube: Home of the Brave (1949), set in the Pacific Theater of WWII, the third film produced by Stanley Kramer. It's a product of its time, which means it's got a standard mixture of toughness, platitudes and a happy ending, but other than Intruder in the Dust from the same year, it's about as honest as any other movie from that period with an African American central character. Reminded me a bit of the Widmark / Poitier No Way Out, in that Poitier the token Negro doctor shared a lot of the conflicted outlook with James Edwards' soldier character. I'd never even heard of this movie until this evening, and when I found it on YouTube it was an easy impulse to obey.

EDIT: I just learned now that Kramer had this film shot in top secrecy, under the working title of---High Noon. IMO this one's far more worth watching than that 1952 movie, but maybe it's just that I can't stand the music in the latter film.

Don't know where to post this, so I'll put it here. It may be too good many of his short posts at his website on the movie classics, and I don't think he's particularly insightful. He's a good decent soon, but Ebert has never much called to me. He's no Pauline Kael as an essayist. Her style is much more kinetic and richly complex.* I don't find his views that interesting or exciting. I've read a journeyman and not much more. His love and enthusiasm do seem genuine--and he that is nice. He doesn't come across as a smart ass with a lot of jargon.